Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Meta discussion re. Sarah [Jane] Brown (disambiguator)

Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation?

Obiwankenobi removed the exception contained in the last paragraph of WP:NCP#Middle names and initials:

Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is usually not advised, although in exceptional cases it might avoid other conundrums, e.g. ‎Sarah Jane Brown [1].[under discussion]

Arguments were given in edit summaries:

  • oppose an exception here. Any real life exceptions can be covered under IAR [2]
  • Undid revision 608535933 by Drowninginlimbo (talk) this addition hasn't been discussed and doesn't have consdensus [3]
  • revert to version pre Francis edits which don't have consensus - esp since SJB is an especially bad example of this [4] (note: pre Francis is a bit of a misnomer as it refers to the version I had written several years ago - ironically there are no pre Francis edits on that page - the very first version of the page contained: Adding middle names (...) merely for disambiguation purposes: not advised [5])
  • Sorry it's just a really bad exAmple - SJB isn't uncommon, it doesn't exist - no RS use this term, ever. And the talk page is a mess, this will only confuse [6] (this last edit only removing the "under discussion" tag)

I thought it better to have this discussion here.

I'll add a discussion tag referring to this section of the NCP talk page.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB and WP:NATURAL are long-standing and have wide acceptance. The example is obviously a bad one, since there is endless discussion about it on the talk page and eight or more requested moves discussing it. Hence, the exception should not be included and the advice to avoid unfamiliar names for the purpose of disambiguation should stand. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Uncommon middle names should not be used for disambiguation, since they do not help the reader. Readers looking for a particular John Smith (or Sarah Brown) cannot be expected to know the middle name of the John Smith (or Sarah Brown) they are seeking. Using middle names where they are not commonly used to refer to the person is not natural disambiguation. This is why people bristle when you call them by their full names -- "that's what my mother called me when I was in trouble". It's not natural. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removing example - that case is very hotly debated, so is a very poor example of when making an exception might be OK. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • remove example of Sarah Jane Brown - this is a very particular example since NO reliable sources have ever been found which refer to this person in this way. Only one I think has ever turned up, before she was married, that gave her middle name. Much better would be to find an example where the middle name is not common, but still used in some sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the current wording "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." is OK. You could make it "...not generally advised" to make it a little weaker and that'd be OK too, since there might be occasional times when it's the best solution -- the usual disambiguation method would result in a term which is confusing or contentious or something. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove example; the examples we use in support of naming conventions should be as uncontroversial as possible. Also, a middle name should be avoided unless it is commonly used to identify the subject in reliable sources, and is needed to distinguish the subject from others with the same given name and surname. A good example would be the architect, John Calvin Stevens. bd2412 T 13:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Lets not toss the baby out with the bathwater. The Sarah Brown article might be a bad example, but there are times when giving the full middle name is an acceptable form of disambiguation. I have added a different example (one that is hopefully not controversial) Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the examples you provided fit with the principle I outlined. These subjects are generally known by the spelled-out middle name. bd2412 T 15:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • proposed by Blueboar:

    An occasional exception to this general rule can be made when there is a need for disambiguation. For example, there are several notable people who are commonly referred to as John S. Smith in sources. These people are disambiguated by by entitling their articles with the full middle name spelled out (as: John Shuter Smith, John Sidney Smith, John Speed Smith and John Stafford Smith).

I disagree, none of these articles mention their subject is "usually" known as John S. Smith. When "these subjects are generally known by the spelled-out middle name" they are no examples of the intended exception. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW, we already have

    If reliable sources write out several or all of a subject's given names nearly as often as they use initials, prefer the version with the names written in full. Example: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and not C. P. E. Bach, although the latter has more Google hits

in the guideline, there's no use in doubling that content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this sub-thread can be closed, and the "underdiscussion" tag linking to this subsection removed. See also #More on using full middle names as disambiguation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Occupation, over notable fact, as principal disambiguator

Bear with me, I had a completely different thought:

Currently in the section on disambiguation: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being.", yet we don't do David Lee (Noble Prize laureate), but David Lee (physicist), similarly, not Mike Jones (one-hit wonder), but Mike Jones (linebacker).

To me it seems the disambiguator is (preferably) chosen for what those people did themselves, in a (daily) activity kind of way (or occupation, profession), not necessarily what they are most notable for.

Similarly the wife of the former PM should never have been at Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). IMHO this sheds a new light on Jimbo's reasoning, the part where he writes "...since she is most famous for being spouse of the Prime Minister", which is apparently kind of irrelevant for the disambiguator.

Equally (philanthropist) doesn't really reflect an occupation or profession, nor any specific activity.

I think she should be at Sarah Brown (charity director) per the first qualifier now used at the Sarah Brown disambiguation page. Oddly I can't find anyone having proposed that quite natural solution before.

Also, I'd write the occupation-over-fame principle regarding bracketed disambiguators in the NCP guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be for one of the things those people did themselves, in an a professional or occupational way. If we needed a qualifier for Charles Ives, for example, I'd expect us to go with Charles Ives (composer) over Charles Ives (insurance agent). But otherwise the clarification seems like a step in the right direction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Among the activities / occupations / professions of course the one the subject is best known for, and if none of them are relevant to why the subject is notable in his/her own right, then a "fame" related disambiguator would do best I suppose. All of that was understood. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, nothing is ever just "understood" in these circles; people will argue about any vagueness or perceived loophole until they turn blue in the face. Heh. JHunterJ's point can be amplified. Clearly William A. Spinks needs no disambiguation, but if he did would it be "(billiards player)", "(inventor)", "(petroleum investor)", "(horticulturist)"? He had multiple professions, and was notable in at least three of them. I'd go with "(billiards player)" because he was notable as such independently of other facts about him and the thing he's best known for (co-invention of modern cue tip "chalk") stemmed directly from that profession; his knowledge of billiards, not any knowledge of chemistry or materials science (his co-inventor Hoskins brought that) was what enabled him to be the co-inventor of anything. If we can account for a case like that, and still stick to the idea Francis Schonken is outlining, then I think we are indeed headed in the right direction. I'd prefer it if we also fixed the stupid-looking cases where we are, quite frequently, misidentifying people as objects or brands of objects (e.g. "William A. Spinks (baseball)"), but perhaps it's too much to ask to kill two birds with one stone here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
What should've been understood is that the core idea of WP:AT (recognisability per the nutshell of that policy) is not touched by this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, in that context, what is your opinion of the proposal "Sarah Brown (UK Labour)"? It's a bit vague-ish, in the same way as "William A. Spinks (billiards)" would be as you point out, but might it fit the situation? walk victor falk talk 23:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's not get too carried away. Disambiguators should not be chosen in a vacuum. In theory, if we have two John Does, one most noted for being a movie director and the other for playing baseball, we could use "John Doe (movies)" and "John Doe (sports)". Now, if there is a basketball player too, then we'd disambiguate the baseball player more specifically. That's in theory. In practice we disambiguate names in certain categories so often we develop standards for how to disambiguate them with less regard to what is necessary to distinguish from the other uses. But even there we do sometimes disambiguate as far as type of baseball player (e.g., pitcher), but only if that much disambiguation is required.

But in a situation where we don't have conventions to apply, let's not forget first principles. To decide a dismabiguator for a given use, we look at all uses of that name and decide what notable characteristic of this use most appropriately distinguishes this use from the others. There are no rules or limitations on what that could or should be, so long as it meets this best requirement. A middle name rarely used in referring to a person does not meet this requirement at all, which is exactly why the guideline says not use it in such case. In other words, the disambiguator should be something about the topic that is recognizable to those familiar with the topic, not something obscure that only specialists would recognize it. The phrase "wife of prime minister" meets that requirement in this case. Any disambiguator we use should meet it as well. --В²C ☎ 00:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In general I don't care too much about John Doe's and multidimensional people who don't need disambiguation.

For instance, I learn more from these actual examples:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Some more words regarding the (philanthropist) disambiguator that had been proposed for S(J)B. I think I have the same reserves against it as against the (socialite) disambiguator: it doesn't really say anything, and apparantly symptomatic for lean biographies:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • comment For Sarah Brown, being the WPM (wife of the prime minister) was a job and a role, indeed she wrote a whole book about the WPM role, and clearly the most notable job and role she has had. As proof of this, just look at how reliable sources disambiguate her. Ideas like Sarah Brown (UK Prime Minister spouse) were proposed as a compromise, which is gender neutral. Otherwise, no-one could agree on any other job title for her, and theres a serious groupthink problem that assumes telling readers what shes most known for is somehow going back to the 30s. -as another alternative, i had proposed (Education advocate) and (Women's advocate) as some reliable sources did describe her in this way. I think the dab is supposed to help the reader immediately recognize they are at the right bio, but isnt supposed to be a mini biography itself. Thus, (baseball player) is better than (1991 MVP player for Yankees) because any reader who knows this person will get it but we're not putting the whole life story out there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly, that's why we don't use (pensioner) as a disambiguator either. Ask any pensioner and most of them will tell you it keeps them more occupied than the job they had before, and it certainly is a role. That's what I feel about vague qualifiers in the (socialite) and (philantropist) sense: too much of an undefined mixed bag, not enough of a concrete activity to become a parenthical disambiguator of choice in the Wikipedia sense (defensible only in a least bad solution scenario for a very limited set of cases, and even then: unstable). Apart from all other problems associated with "marital status" parenthical disambiguators, (wife of ...) and (... spouse) keep falling in the same category of too vague disambiguators for me, as do (... advocate), (... fundraiser), (housewife).
Re. "... just look at how reliable sources disambiguate her", well after all apparently not relevant for a parenthical disambiguator in Wikipedia. I don't even think "disambiguate" is a correct expression for those external sources, if referring to the table in Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Reliable source mentions of Sarah Brown - how do they describe her?. Formidable job, and however compelling, not relevant for the parenthical disambiguator (convincing though as an argument for not using the middle name disambiguator imho).
I still think (charity director) would do best as a disambiguator for J(S)B (without the middle name then). It is a reasonable compromise somewhere in between of too narrow, too much referring to a notable fact, like (charity founder) would be, and too vague, as (charity fundraiser) would be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The crux of the problem around SJB is that she hasn't held any particular job which sources regularly use to describe her, except the role as spouse of the prime minister. I think the comparison to pensioner is inapt, reliable sources don't regularly describe people as such. With all due respect, the large list of sources I found provides an excellent argument for using (WPM) or (SPM) for Sarah Jane Brown - I have no idea why you think that's not relevant for a parenthetical, indeed the vast majority of parenthetical disambiguators are based on how reliable sources regularly describe the person in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why I think (...) isn't really the question here I suppose. Why your co-editors (in general) appear to give little or no attention to Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Reliable source mentions of Sarah Brown - how do they describe her? (despite the thoroughness of your work!) is really the question, where I'd be happy to help you find an answer to.

On the top of my head, why editors aren't too fond of (wife of Prime Minister)/(Prime Minister spouse) type of disambiguators:

  • Doesn't fit in the current guidance of WP:NCP#Disambiguating:
    • "Try to avoid using (...) anything capitalised"
    • "Try (...) to limit the tag to a single (...) term"
    • Not a "standard, commonly used tag such as "(musician)" and "(politician)""
  • If IAR needs to be invoked, many appear to prefer invoking it on the relatively hard WP:MIDDLES rule over invoking it on the relatively soft WP:NCP#Disambiguating rules cited above. Why is that? Now the question is getting interesting:
    • the sexism thing?
    • not referring to her own merits?
    • only referring to a profession if the content of a whole book is pre-understood?
    • Too broad?
    • Too narrow?

The attitude my fellow Wikipedians shouldn't be bothered by it while I'm not bothered by it generally is not conductive to finding the optimal solution I guess. See where I'm coming form? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to replace:

The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being.

by:

The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The only reason why the SJB disambiguation is any issue is that the British don't have a set term like "First Lady" which means "wife of the prime minister". If the British did have such a term, we would use it. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Elaborating non-existing examples is a classical way of overthinking. Couldn't care less about the Barbara Bush's and Michelle Obama's not needing disambiguation. "in his or her own right" is the useful addition, see the many Titanic passengers needing disambiguation, "in his or her own right" works best (even if being on the Titanic was by far the most notable fact of their life):
  • Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder)
  • David Blair (mariner)
  • John Harper (pastor)
  • Robert Hichens (sailor)
  • Jack Phillips (wireless officer)
  • Edward Smith (sea captain)
  • George Symons (sailor)
  • John Thayer (cricketer).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought ... It may help to discuss the difference between disambiguation and identification. To my mind, these are related (even overlapping) concepts, but not identical ones. Disambiguation is navigational in intent... while identification is informational in intent. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe something more general (I mean, not only relevant for titles of biographical articles) → advising to bring it up at WT:AT rather than here.
Anyway, my two cents: informational is rather for the body of the article, not for things added to the article title for disambiguational purposes (I mean in excess of what would be there if no disambiguation were needed). I know, it is tempting when something needs to be added to the article title (for reasons of disambiguation), to make those additions as informational as possible. But try to look at it from this angle: persons with a unique name (in the realms of people notable enough to merit a separate Wikipedia article) don't get such added infobits to their article name, which would be out of balance if we started transmitting info via page names for those with a name shared with other people of sufficiently high notability level. Similar for those that have a name shared with other people of sufficient notability, but who are the primary topic in a disambiguation logic. In sum: article titles are informational only for that part that overlaps with the clarity and recognisability needed for disambiguation. All other basic information (or: identification) about the person should go to the lede, not the article title, otherwise soon we'd be thus far from the common name principle that article titles start to be "lede summaries" which is not what article titling is about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NICKNAME

I had removed WP:NICKNAME from the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens section as looking up WP:NICKNAME redirects to the Wikipedia:Username policy. But I'm restoring it now since it is not clear which version should take precedence. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be as you restored it: click the link in the edit summary of this edit [8] - then read: result of the discussion... etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What about WP:Nickname? That can go ahead to the user names section? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't like it, per WP:DIFFCAPS. The minimum you should have done is this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NCPDAB comma convention

I see last year there was a discussion to standardise on "Name (qualifier, born YYYY)". And recently I have seen on my watchlist a few times editors moving articles from "Joe Bloggs (footballer born XXXX)" to "Joe Bloggs (footballer, born XXXX)". To be honest, it irks me – it's an additional character that gives, in my opinion, no benefit to the reader. There is no reason a comma is necessary for a descriptive term like "footballer" (others, such as "ice hockey" and "basketball" obviously make sense) and I honestly see no reason why, for example, the title for a footballer's article needs to be so consistent with an ice hockey player's article. Looking over the RfC I agree #2 ("Name (subject, born YYYY)") was the most supported option, but most of the people who supported that option also seemed to be feel that not using the comma was also perfectly acceptable in cases like footballer.

So basically I'm suggesting that the guideline should be tweaked to say a comma can be used, whereas it currently says it should be used. Thoughts? Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Consistency is more important than a nearly nonexistent efficiency difference, and allowing variation here simply creates a need to ensure that every single case of "Name (field, born YYYY)" has a redirect from "Name (field born YYYY)" or vice versa. Who's going to do all that work, you?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I think the entire issue of commas in titles is instruction creep... too petty an issue to include in this guideline. I would remove the entire instruction... completely... Consistency of style is a nice goal, but "rule making" about it can be over done.
The reality is that most editors don't care whether there is a comma or not... which means that they will consider any proposal to change the title uncontroversial. For an uncontroversial move you can simply use the move page button (don't forget to move the associated talk page). On those rare occasions when someone reverts or states an objection (after the fact), just discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus. Remember that consistency is just one of the factors that we think about when determining the best title for an article (and often given the least amount of weight in such discussions)... it's OK to be inconsistent as long as there is consensus to be inconsistent. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree I was brought here by a message on my talk. There doesn't seem to have been consensus for that change to the guideline requiring a comma, and I also agree it's instruction creep. I agree that consistency is pretty important, but if anything, we should standardise in a "more economic" form. We shouldn't be mass-moving titles to namespaces with redundant commas, nor should anyone be summarily reverting moves that eliminate that redundancy. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would go a step further... there is no real need to "standardize" on this at all. Remember that we are talking about a parenthetical disambiguation here. The only reason we have these is to distinguish one subject from another (and even then, we only use it as a last resort when a more basic form of disambiguation is itself ambiguous... like when there are two people who could be disambiguated as "Joe Smith (Footballer)"... in each case there are at most two or three articles involved. Whether there is a comma in one of them and no comma in another is irrelevant to that disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, and, like Blueboar, would go a step further. Disambiguation should be based on the particular situation. If there is no other use for the name in question, then there is no disambiguation at all. If there are other people, then disambiguate with whatever they're known for (like "footballer"). If there are multiple people famous for that, then disambiguate further with year (unless one of them is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). I any case there should be no comma. Stylistically and per WP:CRITERIA other than conciscion it's a wash, so per concision no comma is favored. --В²C ☎ 00:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Enough already, we know your feelings on disambiguation, B2C (you do go on and on about it.. it's becoming disruptive)... I think it is clear that in this case, we are talking about those few situations were we have to go to extremes of disambiguation... where there Joe Blow (Footballer) is not enough, and so we need something else tack on to further disambiguate. The issue is a relatively petty question of grammar and punctuation. But to address your comment... Conciseness is not affected one bit by adding or not adding a comma. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Jr/Sr convention in WP:NCP#Disambiguating

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Comma before Jr. or Sr. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction between WP:NICKNAME and WP:TITLEFORMAT

From NICKNAME:

Page names are hardly suitable to clarify, explain or in any other way elaborate on the composition of a name. Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name. [...] The page name uses preferably the most commonly used version of the name of that person, other variants can be included as redirects, and if needed clarified in the body of the article.

From TITLEFORMAT:

Article titles that are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks. [...] An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the movie "Crocodile" Dundee or the album "Heroes").

Must the guideline be consistent with the policy? Shall there be changes to the guideline? --George Ho (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see a contradiction. NICKNAME is talking about how to format the titles for articles about people while TITLEFORMAT is (at that point) talking about the titles of articles about movies, plays, books, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
However, TITLEFORMAT applies to people also. We have been discussing moving Ed Jones (American football) to Ed "Too Tall" Jones. --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What about NICKNAME section? --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see where there would be a problem with WP:NICKNAME. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WP:NICKNAME would indicate that we should avoid including "Too Tall" in the title (we would leave that information for the opening line of text) ... However, WP:AT is all about finding a balance between various criteria... we try to achieve all the criteria at the same time, but if we can't then it is OK to give one more weight than another. In the Case of Ed Jones... COMMONNNAME usage may outweigh NICKNAME (ie, if most reliable and independent sources include the nickname "Too Tall" when referring to Mr. Jones, it would not be inappropriate to downplay NICKNAME in favor of COMMONNAME). This policy intentionally has lots of exceptions built into its "rules"... so that we end up with what we think is the best title for a given article... and don't worry so much about which title is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No. "Too Tall" is not a nickname. The guys nickname is Ed "Too Tall" Jones, to which Wikipedia editors have neither added something, nor should they omit something from it. So no, there is no tension with the provisions of WP:NICKNAME should the guy's nickname be used *as is* as Wikipedia article title.
Also, contrary to what Blueboar suggests, the word adding in what follows can not be replaced by "including" (when it is the common name "including" a portion in quotes that portion in quotes should be kept per policy, without contradiction with the guideline): "avoid (...) adding a nickname (...) in quotes between first and last name" as it is in the guideline, with emphasis added.
Clear if you ask me, misreading it can only be done after rephrasing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Quite a few sources refer to him as "Too Tall" Jones. "Too Tall" is clearly the nickname, like Dick is mine. It is OK to leave the title without it, I think, though I can see that it might also be OK with it, since he's so commonly called by the whole thing and since Ed Jones is much less precise and recognizable.. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not about what "quite a few sources" do, never has been. I was talking about the common name. And about the way he writes his own name at his own website. That happens to be a nickname, like Dizzy Gillespie's composed of parts of a name he received at birth and parts that were added later. Or like "Weird Al" Yankovic's, in this case, like in Jones' case, throwing in some quotation marks. Here's the choice for Jones: either use his birth name, in the "first name last name" format, with a parenthical disambiguator, or use his nickname which appears to be his common name, with the typographical quirk, which is conforming to WP:NICKNAME. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I knew the current version of WP:NICKNAME is very unclear to many. Adding and including won't make a difference. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comma after "Jr.", "Sr.", etc.

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Comma after "Jr.", "Sr.", etc.? about whether expressions such as "Jr." and "Sr." should be followed by a comma in cases where they are also precedes by one. —sroc 💬 13:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now an RfC on this issue (now actually on the issue of the comma before Jr. etc.). It affects this page as well. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Comma or no comma before Jr. and Sr.. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Starting to look like edit-warring

Could Francis Schonken please stop introducing a comma before "Sr." and "Jr."? While we're at it, the dot is not normally used outside North America, yet the guideline doesn't pay service to that. It's for another time, though. Tony (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Help in regards to naming conventions at Anil K. Jain

Long story short, the pages on Anil K. Jain have essentially been renamed as sufficiently per WP:NCPDAB, but it seems that confusion could still occur between the two subjects. Can anyone provide some input on these titles? (Pinging Megalibgwilia so they can see this post.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Per my prior comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, for what it's worth, I think the current situation is satisfactory (and is better than before Steel's recent changes). Another possibility might be to disambiguate according to the institution at which each has been a professor, or to mark one as "(image compression engineer)" and the other as "(pattern recognition researcher)". Megalibgwilia (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence of WP:NCP#Middle names and initials

From my talk page

Hi Francis. Yes, given names are often used as middle names, but surnames are as well. There are cases where it may be tempting to add a (first) given name to someone best known by their middle name for disambiguation purposes, but surely the other way around is more common. That's certainly been my experience at WP:RM. And NCP had "middle names" there for a long time. It was such during this discussion you initiated: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 13#Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation? It doesn't look like this was changed as a result of that discussion. Do you know if it was changed in another discussion? My most recent edit provides clarity and restores this longstanding language. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"given names" quite obviously covers also the less frequent case of a first name that isn't commonly used. What might be the problem with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A familiar example of a surname used as a middle name is George Walker Bush or another is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It's certainly not unusual among American bluebloods or wannabes. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional guidance regarding use of qualifiers (like this)

I am beginning work on the page John Collier (reformer) and am wondering if there is more guidance about the use of qualifiers like (reformer). Is there any standard vocabulary for qualifiers? Also seems to me that some qualifiers involve a value judgement ... if I was Indian activist Alice Lee Jemison I might feel that John Collier (oppressor) would be more fitting, but could agree to compromise on John Collier (bureaucrat) (slightly negative) or John Collier (government official) (neutral?). Thoughts? Guidance? Maybe this issue will become moot because of the semantic web and therefore isn't worth too much time debating? Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be profession only. If there exist two people with the same name and the exact same profession, middle names or middle initials can be used to further disambiguate, as with John Adams (composer) and John Luther Adams (even though the latter is also commonly called "John Adams" without the middle name). Disambiguation should never be a value judgement. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Re. "It should be profession only" – incorrect, and not in any guidance on the matter. John Howard (prison reformer) is perfectly viable. This example however shows a weakness of an unqualified "(reformer)" disambiguator, vague: religious reformer, Indian reformer, etc.? Note that "reformer" is quite non-judgemental, e.g. calling Jan Hus a reformer sides neither with those who sanctified him, nor with those who burnt him at the stake, so that's not the problem with a "(reformer)" disambiguator as such.
Re. "If there exist two people with the same name and the exact same profession, middle names or middle initials can be used to further disambiguate" – Usually not, WP:INITS advises against this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

.

I think I agree with Francis Schonken on this. Tony (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Middle names or middle initials can only be used to disambiguate if the person was actively known by the related designation in life and/or significantly after death. A reference in an obituary that is poorly if at all backed by other references is not enough. GregKaye 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Concur. We've been over this many times before, more at RM than formally at NCP or AT, but generally with the same result: inserting an initial that almost no one knows isn't going to help readers find the correct article, and may actually make this more difficult. The same problem attends attempts to disambiguate by birth date. Details like that are what people come here for, not what they come here with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks in names

Can guidelines regarding the issue of quotation marks in article titles be changed? For articles including "Weird Al" Yankovic, George "Porky" Andrews, Lee "Scratch" Perry, it's been decided that quotation marks are an integral part of the individual's professional name.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a short clarification, per discussion at WT:AT. No such user (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. That discussion isn't concluded (don't change guidelines before consensus)
  2. As such the insertion was nonsensical: the guideline only speaks about insertion between first and last name: "Weird Al" isn't such insertion, so not even a counterexample to the standard guidance – avoid gobbledegook please! --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked, WP:BRD also applies in editing guidelines. I appreciate being reverted on the merits of an edit, not on WP:BURO grounds.
  1. In that discussion, SmokeyJoe, Blueboar, Jayron32 and Masem all concurred that we sometimes do that, when WP:COMMONNAME and common sense dictate it, and that the guideline was not meant to be followed blindly. SMcCandlish dissented to an extent, but acknowledged that it still appropriately leaves open the door to justified exceptions'. Nobody expressed an explicitly contrary opinion. That's consensus in my book. Do we need to list it at WP:AN and wait for a month for someone to formally close it?
  2. The whole sentence reads, bold mine, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name (note the "or"). "Weird Al" Yankovic is an exception to adding a nickname, Joe "Scratch" Perry to inserting it between first and last name. No such user (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've made another attempt which hopefully clarifies the consensus worked out so far, and is hopefully clear enough. --Jayron32 15:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. ... but the discussion is not yet concluded.
  2. ... disagree. The guy's nickname includes Yankovic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. I also disagree with the rationale "...unless a preponderance of reliable sources uses that construction..." (and would avoid words like "preponderance"). I think the rationale should be "...unless that is the way the pseudonym is usually written..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Right, and this is an unnecessarily forked discussion. It's not intrinsically a bio article naming matter (lots of non-human things also have nicknames, from warplanes to cities). This fork of the discussion should be closed, and consensus determined at the larger discussion. PS: WP:AN would not be a venue for an RfC or other discussion on such a topic, Jayron. PPS: No one calls Joe Perry "Scratch". Heh. I think you mean Lee.  :-)
  2. "Weird Al" Yankovic and Joe "Scratch" Perry are neither nicknames prefixed to / inserted into names, nor nicknames, they're unitary, professional pseudonyms that happen to resemble nickname constructions, and probably originated as them. No works by these subjects (that I'm aware of) feature the names "Al Yankovic" or "Joe Perry", and the relevant media refer to them as "'Weird Al' Yankovic" and "Joe 'Scratch' Perry", just as Winona Ryder is credited as such in films and television and referred to by this name in source, not called "Winona Horowitz". What the guideline is addressing here is: Do not use "Andrew (Andy) Lincoln" or Clerow "Flip" Wilson.
  3. The "preponderance of reliable sources" wording is adapted from MOS:TM; the wording there, "a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject" was the product of significant consensus negotiation, so we should probably just use that exact wording. If we didn't, "preponderance" could be replaced, but only with something that indicates a landslide majority, not a marginal one, or it will open a floodgate of lawyering and cherrypicking in attempts to rename a large stream of articles by manipulating the perception of what the majority usage is. The "reliable sources" wording was used on purpose, tying it to core content policies. Something as vague as "usually written" will be interpreted as meaning "regardless of source reliability", and will thus lead to Google hit counting based on blogs, forum posts, etc. We're not a dictionary trying to measure informal public usage; we're only interested in what reliable, independent sources are doing. And that raises a side issue – the independence of the entertainment press is questionable, especially the music press, who are beholden to record companies for most of their advertising money, and thus basically do what they're told when it comes to orthography of artists's names, song/album titles, etc. This issue has come up more than once. We need to look at what non-specialist sources like newspapers are doing more than what insider publications relating to a particular subject's profession are doing. This is a common sense matter as well; the vast majority of our readers are not insiders in one particular profession, but come from other walks of life, with non-jargonistic expectations about language usage with regard to the field in question. WP ultimately does not care that Prince officially changed his name to some weird symbol for many years; it's not relevant to how we write an encyclopedia. While that's an extreme case, the same reasoning addresses many other disputes that arise here like Kesha/Ke$ha, Deadmau5/Deadmaus, iPod/Ipod, EBay/eBay, Macy's/Macy*s, KISS/Kiss, etc., etc. We don't go with a quirky style unless reliable, independent sources overwhelmingly also do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jnr/Snr in titles

Why can't we use Jnr or Snr? I tried changing Christy O'Connor Jnr, but consensus opposed it. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You've misread my edit summary. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how to disambiguate

Hi, I'm currently working on a draft for someone called Henry Trigg, but the article will require disambiguating because there is another Henry Trigg on Wikipedia already. This page says "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right." My Henry Trigg was a grocer, but that isn't what he's noted for; he is more famous for writing an eccentric will and having his coffin placed in the rafters of a barn to stop bodysnatchers, though in the end all the bones were stolen and then he became the subject of a ghost story. So I don't want to use (grocer) as a disambiguator, does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks so much. AnemoneProjectors 18:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest "Henry Trigg (eccentric)". DrKay (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking that would be OR unless a source used that term. I would suggest using the birth date or death date in such a case. DES (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have a source that says "Trigg's eccentricity became the focus of a small cult of tourism" so "(eccentric)" sounds like a good idea. I know his death and baptism dates but not his birth. Thank you. AnemoneProjectors 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"(eccentric)" came to my mind too as I read this, before seeing DrKay's post. PamD 22:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The page could always be moved if it's wrong. He can't exactly complain, he died nearly 300 years ago :-) AnemoneProjectors 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Henry Trigg (testator) seems indicated...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That's probably better because it's because of his will that he became noteworthy - we don't really know what he was like as a person when he was alive. anemoneprojectors 13:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Middle names

@Francis Schonken: Re [10]: the relevant excerpt from WP:NATURAL is an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. That is, we sometimes disambiguate by middle names if their usage is reasonably common in the RS (subject to editorial consensus), as a natural alternative to parenthetical disambiguation. Currently the disputed sentence reads that adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised, which is accurate, but it isn't specific enough for my taste. That wording has been apparently misinterpreted by the RM nominator at Talk:George Spafford Richardson, which I tried to clarify with my edit. Granted, my edit wasn't specific enough either – but then, we currently don't have a relevant example in the #Disambiguating (WP:NCPDAB) section of this page. Do you agree with adding one? No such user (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting you browse the talk page archives of this guideline on this. After freezing Sarah Jane Brown to that article title for an extended period (which is, obviously, an exception to the "don't use middle names for disambiguation alone" principle), I tried to mitigate the guidance to using middle names for disambiguation more easily, which was rejected, WP:RECOGNISABLE trumping WP:NATURAL in all other broadly accepted cases. WP:CCC, of course, but I'd suggest not to meddle with the middle names guidance without prior consensus on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also I'd strongly advise against trying to get guidance your way pending a RM you'd like to massage to a different outcome. Won't happen: first the RM, and only if its outcome contradicts the guidance with a broad margin we can see whether an update of the guidance is necessary (otherwise its just an allowable exception, like the Sarah Brown example I gave above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also I'd strongly advise against trying to get guidance your way pending a RM you'd like to massage to a different outcome. – Thanks for AGF, it is always a pleasure having a policy discussion with you. The RM in question is doomed to fail, and my only intent here was to clarify the policy. I don't have any personal investment in that RM.
Now, do you intend to engage my substantive argument that using middle names as an allowable exception needs a clarification and a guiding principle, or do you intend to filibuster as usual? No such user (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

James Oakley

Looking for thoughts / suggestions on a disambiguator. I wrote James Oakley (judge), it was moved to James Oakley (County administrator), discussion is at talk:James Oakley (County administrator)#Disambiguation. Assistance from editors experienced in naming articles on people is invited. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

J. J. Watt or J.J. Watt

The discussion currently active at Talk:J. J. Watt#Requested move 2 December 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#RfC: Proposing the third moratorium

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Proposing the third moratorium

The third moratorium is proposed. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops... my bad. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Is it time for another move discussion?

The above-referenced exchange of views, initiated on March 1, 2017 as a continuation of the previous discussion regarding the same topic, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Toward a MOS:NICKNAME

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

I've written an essay (after getting tired of explaining the same things over and over again) at Wikipedia:Using nicknames (WP:NICKUSE). I think it can and should be adapted into a section at MOS:BIO (broader scope that WP:NCPEOPLE, which is titles-specific) instead of being an essay, though it may need some additional input before such a proposal. Please use its own talk page for suggestions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Valeriya Gontaryeva#Requested move 18 April 2017

The above-referenced discussion regarding the proposed move of Valeriya Gontaryeva to Valeria Gontareva and the associated "G"/"H" surname transliteration may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender Transition

I'm suggesting here that we insert a small clause into the section on Self-published name changes to allow us to more quickly rename articles for people who have announced a gender transition. Borrowing from WP:MOSIDENTITY, I suggest a change along the lines of:

Where a person announces a name change following a gender change or transition, it is often preferable to give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources for deciding on an article title. This may mean that the title does not match what's most common in reliable sources or the common name by which a subject is currently known. This exception should be applied with caution and common sense, and there may be occasions where the common name is still more appropriate

.The wording is chosen so as to not undo or change WP:COMMONAME as a policy, noting that it states that our naming principles are "goals, not... rules" and that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" (my emphasis). As a guideline, we can suggest here that gender change may be a case where there are exceptions to the general rule, and that changing this guideline is more appropriate than altering what is generally a good policy.

Note that this suggestion has been prompted by discussion at Talk:Robert Millar. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Opposed - There is no reason to treat gender related name changes differently from any other name change. Once sources start to refer to the person by the new name, we can (and should) follow suit. Until then, we should wait. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Opposed The article should be at the name by which the individual is most recognised/under which they are/were notable. As NAMECHANGES suggests, a generous weighting might be given to post-change notability in considering the balance of references under each name if the notability-generating activity extends across both sides of the change; however, publicity about the person's gender change should not be regarded as part of that balancing of references, as gender change is not of itself grounds for notability. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Disc jockey to DJ

"Disc jockey" should be changed to "DJ" per consistency with all other DJ articles.

Full names of band members

There is a brief section addressing articles focused around multiple individuals closely related within a group. For example, the members of 5SOS, or The Plain White T's – if the members' full names were in fact known, would you add middle names in the "band members" sections or elsewhere within the article. Many people seem to crave sources for each full name of each person, though. Would each member then be cited with an article discussing their full names? Or are full names just not necessary in general? Will the members of 5SOS for ever remain middle-name-less? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic reason to give their full names when they are not publicly known by them. Many performers don't even use a variant of their "real"/birth/legal names anyway. If we have an article on the individual performer, there does seem to be interest in including this info, when reliably sourceable, since the article is all about that person, including their early-life background. In a list of band members at a band article that doesn't seem to apply.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It depends if the band member is going to have a biography section within the article as with Meg & Dia, otherwise, go by stage name or common name as with members of Red Hot Chili Peppers. 5 Seconds of Summer is more of a boy band scheme so no, full name shouldn't be used there. Birthday shouldn't either, except that if it's a boy band where age is important to the branding. For Plain White T's the full name isn't necessary there either, just common name. If each person has a mononym (4 Minute and kpop groups) or a nickname like Spice Girls then consider first and last name if common. Although in the case of Kpop, a lot of the "band members" sections are removed as not terribly useful since they all sing. Save the full or middle names when the member is notable for an individual article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Outdated example needs to be replaced

In the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Single_name subsection, the article uses Tacitus versus Marcus Claudius Tacitus as an example for when "the use of a single name without any other qualifier as article title helps in disambiguation". But the latter page has redirected to Tacitus (emperor) since April 2016, so it is no longer a good example — referring to the author by just "Tacitus" is no longer enough to disambiguate the two pages. An outdated example is better than no example at all, so I wouldn't want to remove this bit outright, but I don't personally know of any better examples to replace it with. If anyone does, please go ahead. NotTheInferno (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of eponyms with name parts (L', von, de) not usually capitalized

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#L'Hôpital's rule.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Henri" versus "Henry" for historical French figures

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict between WP:NCP and WP:MOS

NPC is requiring the use of "Jr." and "Sr." as abbreviations for "Junior" and "Senior", respectively. Despite citing MOS:ENGVAR, it directly conflicts with it in doing so, since the norm in British/Commonwealth English is "Jnr" and "Snr", not "Jr." and "Sr." I attempted to resolve this, but was reverted on it [11], so here's the "D" in WP:BRD. The revert claims "This was discussed previously and rejected." However this does not appear to be the case. If you search the NCP archives for the string "Jnr", there are only three hits:

Frankly, this page doesn't have the magical authority to contradict other guidelines. If there's a conflict, it has to be resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Obviously the MoS has more power over the style used in articles than this page does. That is its purpose. One question now is whether the MoS is the one to adapt—which I don't think it should be. If you have been reverted trying to implement change, I doubt this will go much further without a formal RfC, but that is up to you. This is another page I think should some how be brought into the MoS; it is impossible to know which guidance to follow when different sections are undermining each other all the time. I will leave it with you to decide what to do next. As I say, my suggestion would be for it to go to an RfC, because then we would have a 'binding' conclusion to end this properly, though perhaps a consensus for one of the two styles will be demonstrated through this. For what it's worth, either 'Jnr' or 'Jr' is fine by me; 'Jr.' is not. –Sb2001 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The section in question is intended to focus on the use of commas (ie use “Joe Smith Jr.” not “Joe Smith, Jr.”)... and as far as the comma issue goes, NCP is perfectly in sync with MOS. I don’t think either guideline says anything about Jr vs Jnr (whether with or without terminal punctuation). Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:JR/SR and MOS:JR are the conflicting sections. –Sb2001 02:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
And yes, MOS:JR does say something about Jnr, or this discussion wouldn't be happening. Just go read it. More to the point, it's a general ENGVAR matter; it is not even close to necessary that any MoS page lay out a complete and total list of all features of British/Commonwealth English for it to be a serious problem when an NC page tries to dictate a particular Americanism as the only acceptable usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Jnr is used much in BE. See n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea it's not, but New Hart's Rules a.k.a. New Oxford Style Manual says it is, and that "Jr." is an Americanism (except when applied to American names in British writing, as in "Martin Luther King Jr. gave a colourful speech while standing on the kerb"). I don't have any particular "dog in the fight" other than that our guidelines contradicting each other is not okay, nor is editing-warring to force them to continue contradicting each other, especially upon bogus claims of consensus discussions that didn't actually happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no ENGVAR issue. Jr and Sr are used in the UK. DrKay (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Without the stop typically? I've seen Jnr and Snr more in Australian footballers than in UK, but not very many of those either. This search doesn't find a lot, but does find American LaVelle Smith Jnr and Brit Matt Monro Jnr and Ghanaians Kweku Baako Jnr and Akwaboah Jnr; most of the Aussies are redirects. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean there's no ENGVAR issue with relation to whether there's an 'n' before the 'r' in the abbreviation. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on searching, it looks to me like Jnr and Snr are so rare in en.wp that we might as well just say the Jr. and Sr. are always preferred (allow dropping the stop if Brits do that). Is anyone saying that Jnr and Snr are important in some context, or for some names? I haven't seen it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I did a bunch of comma fixing on Snr and Jnr articles, which had escaped my attention last year in the Jr Sr fixes. Many of them are New Zealanders, Scottish, and Irish, and a few other things. Is this abbrev style a feature of their names, or of an Engvar, or what? It's too rare to tell. One thing seems clear: most of these people with "Snr" are not referred to that way in sources; they just happen to have a son of the same name. The guidelines say not to disambiguate this way unless that's how they were known, doesn't it? What's the best alternative? Birth/death years? Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved 18 articles to remove comma (and sometimes trailing stop) from Jnr and Snr. And edited commas out of a lot more articles (not all though). But I left the Jnr and Snr. According to this query, there are 56 articles ending with Jnr or Snr, and 89 with Jr or Sr without a stop, so that's actually quite rare, compared to the 6787 ending with Jr. or Sr. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, a comma is never used with Jnr/Snr, according to the non-American style guides that favo[u]r it over Jr[.]/Sr[.] style. That is, even when commas were common with "Jr." they were never common with "Jnr".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

On the guidelines, the thing to do seems clear: Shorten the recent fork at the people naming page, having it just say to follow the advice at the MOS page; a short summary is OK, but anything long enough to potentially conflict is a bad idea. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well this is quite a discussion, given that the wording is presently a subject in an RM, so I don't know why any tinkering with the language is occurring or this discussion is even happening now. On this Jnr and Snr thing, I have no opinion, but what about "fils", which may usually be written with a comma and has a slightly different meaning than Jr. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
What RM discussion are you talking about? Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't read this whole discussion because there is an ongoing RM at the King National Historical Park page, where the guideline language about things named for people is a major point. Not being a wikilawyer (I called myself a wikipublicdefender recently, and probably a poor one at that) I don't know if your edits changed that or not, and there is discussion below which may be relevant to the question. I did bring up in my comment above the inclusion or non-inclusion of "fils", which seems related but not an exact match for the Jr. guidelines. Does it seem relevant to discussion, or is "fils" fine with the comma? I was honored to stand before the tomb of Alexandre Dumas, fils this year and, unlike Dr. King's tomb, his doesn't include a comma. Maybe another discussion on that topic would be appropriate, or it can be added to the "Jr." guideline where, the only problem I can see, is that "fils" is not followed by a comma in running text so may not be appropriate for the guideline and may actually need the comma. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Finding a solution to the issue

  • This seems to be moving away from the actual issue, which is whether or not this page should aim to be MoS-compliant. What is being discussed now is whether or not what the MoS presents is right. It is there either because there was consensus to include it or because there has been no consensus to change it. If you have a challenge to MOS:JR, take it up at WT:MOS. This is not the place to do so. The question here is:
    Should WP:JR/SR be altered to include the options outlined at MOS:JR? –Sb2001 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The answer to that is ... both pages should give the same advice. Since they are both guidelines (neither “outranking” the other), if there is a conflict we need to have a centralized discussion, reach a consensus and go from there... it may be that one or BOTH pages will need to change. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
And since this is an issue of style, the discussion should be an MoS one. If this was a subpage of the MoS, that is, it had 'MOS:' as its shortcut, it would be able to make stylistic decisions. This page is not in any position to affect the overall manual of style's advice. We cannot decide to change the MoS from here, just as we cannot decide to change this page from the MoS—someone will challenge the outcome. For now, the only question that should be being asked is whether or not to bring WP:JR/SR into compliance with MOS:JR. From here, the MoS advice may be discussed. If it was up to me, this would be an MoS subpage. Then, discussions could take place at either location and changes brought in at once. –Sb2001 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • An editor added a new link to MOS:JR, then I reverted but reverted back, but seeing this question maybe it should be reverted back yet again. Is this type of addition normal during an open RM where the guideline language is an issue and the editor adding the link is an active participant? Am still wondering. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's normal to try to fix things that come up in discussions. What RM are you referring to? If you think my attempt at a fix was not in the right direction, say so, or propose something better. The current copy-fork situation is just confusing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    • While amending a relevant guideline to “win” at RM is frowned upon... RM discussions are often HOW WE DISCOVER that a potential conflict between guidelines exists. Discussion aimed at resolving a potential conflict between guidelines is always beneficial. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is pretty muddled, because the MoS wording is based on a careful review of all major contemporary style guides, and detailed research on "in the wild" current usage, and its current wording was established in a WP:VPPOL RfC (though the RfC focused on punctuation, not spelling, for the most part). The NCP wording seems to be based on nothing and has not been subjected to scrutiny, so it's secondary, per WP:CONLEVEL. But even aside from that, MoS has precedence over style questions in the first place. There isn't really any question which of the pages needs to change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree on saying that MOS has precedent simply because it is MOS. When two guidelines conflict, the community needs to hold a centralized discussion and resolve the conflict... but, until that discussion is held, NEITHER guideline “out ranks” the other. Once the discussion IS held, and a new consensus is reached... THEN we will know how to amend our guidance (and it is quite possible that this new consensus will require BOTH pages to be amended). Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Except WP doesn't actually work that way. A newer consensus about the same thing replaces an older one, and consensus can form at any page as long as it's well-advertised. See WP:Consensus. The consensus for MOS:JR was actually formed at WP:VPPOL, the "highest forum of the land", as it were, for policy decisions, so it clearly overturns the older decisions that led to the now-conflicting wording in WP:JR/SR. The later VPPOL decision has also been reaffirmed in RM after RM (more than 50 of them, over the last couple of years). So, there is no question what the actual consensus is. All that was happening when this discussion opened is that the same people who keep WP:POINTily resisting MOS:JR at all these RMs, yet not getting their way, are stubbornly also resisting normalization of WP:JR/SR and MOS:JR because they think, wrongly, that WP:JR/SR's conflicting but superseded wording gives them some kind of trump card against MOS:JR. If that were actually a correct assessment, it would not have happened that years of RMs have gone the MOS:JR way and against their "give me my comma or give me death" posturing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Given all the discussion above, I've re-normalized the guidelines [12]. I can't see anything controversial in this minor wording change, which reflects everything we've talked about here and in previous discussion at other pages. Also did some punctuation and markup cleanup so it reads easier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you, that does look like an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion at C. C. H. Pounder

Resolved
 – An unmistakable WP:ABOUTSELF sourced settled the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please come participate in the move discussion at Talk:C. C. H. Pounder#Requested move 20 February 2018. It deals with interpretation and implementation of the WP:SPACEINITS section. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_13&oldid=1137425859"